An attorney for Samsung argued Australian judge Annabelle Bennett was wrong in granting Apple a temporary injunction against the Galaxy Tab, saying the justice made a series of errors and failed to understand key elements of the case.

Samsung's attorney Neil Young stated at an appeal hearing that "there was either no arguable case for infringement or it was very weak," according to a report by Dow Jones.

Apple claims that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed upon 13 of the company's patents, claims that will be examined in full at a later date.

However, the judge overseeing the case preliminarily agreed, on the basis of just two of the patents, that Apple's case was strong enough to warrant a temporary sales ban until the full case was decided. She did not make a final ruling of infringement regarding any of the patent claims.

A final hearing has not yet been set, but the temporary injunction has blocked sales during the critical holiday sales season in Australia. Apple is also suing Samsung in California and in cases in a variety of other jurisdictions globally, with a separate injunction on sales being won in Germany.

It was in the US court that a judge held Samsung's Galaxy Tab and Apple's iPad in the air and challenged Samsung's attorneys to identify which one was made by Samsung, something the US attorney said she could not do from a ten foot distance.

Samsung's lawyer argued that justice Bennett did not imply in her findings that Apple's claims were strong enough to justify the injunction, but Apple's attorney Stephen Burley said his company's infringement case had a "sufficient likelihood of success," justifying the imposition of the ban.

Burley described the judge as having reviewed the infringement case in a detailed fashion, reportedly stating in court that "it was not a case of your honor ticking boxes" in arriving at the conclusion that sales of Samsung's tablet product be banned.

Even before the injunctions went into effect, consumers have largely ignored the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and other new 2011 tablet models running this spring's Android 3.0 Honeycomb software. One recent report by NPD noted that among all tablets sold in the US outside of the iPad, the best selling model was HP's now discontinued webOS-based TouchPad, which shipped fewer than a quarter million units.

This winter, Amazon's Kindle Fire is expected to rank as the most popular tablet outside of the iPad, but it runs a year old version of Android incompatible with tablet apps targeting Android 3.0 or the latest 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich," an issue Apple claims will only further fragment the overall Android platform.

It's iterating how the battles are being fought in other countries and not here in the US. We hear more about Germany and Australia and so forth then we do here in the US. Imagine how much money is spent to fight this in Australia. I bet the Attorney's fees are staggering.

Competition is good for the industry. I know that Apple thinks Samsung is copying their iPad but if Apple is doing so well why spend so much money to block them when Apple could just build a better iPad that Samsung can't even come close to before hand?

Competition is good for the industry. I know that Apple thinks Samsung is copying their iPad but if Apple is doing so well why spend so much money to block them when Apple could just build a better iPad that Samsung can't even come close to before hand?

It's a matter of principle.

If somebody cheated me out of money, I would spend at least double the amount that was taken to get revenge and satisfaction and justice for all, if that's what it took.

An attorney for Samsung argued Australian judge Annabelle Bennett was wrong in granting Apple a temporary injunction against the Galaxy Tab, saying the justice made a series of errors and failed to understand key elements of the case.

As a lawyer who practices both plaintiff and defense work, if you are bitching that the judge didn't understand key elements, you did a shitty job.

I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...

more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-

yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.

Thanks for providing that, but the Samsung shills will refuse to look at anything that interferes with their insane arguments. Let's quote the relevant part:

Quote:

So with all that background, here's Apple's list of trade dress elements it thinks Samsung is infringing:

Hardware and software trade dress claims

- a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
- the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
- as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
- a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
- a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
- a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Packaging trade dress claims

- a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
- a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
- use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

Apple did not get a patent on a rounded rectangle. It had to have a LOT more characteristics, as well.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It's iterating how the battles are being fought in other countries and not here in the US. We hear more about Germany and Australia and so forth then we do here in the US. Imagine how much money is spent to fight this in Australia. I bet the Attorney's fees are staggering.

Competition is good for the industry. I know that Apple thinks Samsung is copying their iPad but if Apple is doing so well why spend so much money to block them when Apple could just build a better iPad that Samsung can't even come close to before hand?

apple did build a better product and samsung did just copy it ..thats the problem apple makes and samsung copies.

yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.

Hint ... Ignore list

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.

Explain how my opinion on the design patent (which isn't Australia so I was off topic) is equivalent to trolling.

The design patent levied against Samsung in another jurisdiction was for a product that doesn't and most likely wont exist. Not for looking like an iPad.

I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...

more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-

Apple do not have monopoly on rounded rectangle. No company can have monopoly on a rectangle or rounded corners. Till date only one Judge (German) has sided with Apple on this design philosophy and that too on following (if you have read the German ruling)

(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor

In other words all of the above characteristics needs to be present in a single device to violate Apple patent/community design.. The whole German case was based on above points only and nothing else (no trade dress, grid of icons, etc ).

Moreover in the ruling it was made clear by German judge that point 1 and 2 are obvious design choices. And since no body can lay claim over thin form factor, the whole lawsuit was centered on point (iii), (iv) and (v).

Since Galaxy tab has all above points as mentioned above, it was banned, and now Samsung has redesigned the same as Galaxy Tab 10.1N

lol, well my Android bias is definitely prominent but I'd hardly call myself a shill. I have many critiques for the platform as well as many likes. And just as I don't blindly hate Apple I don't get the blind hatred towards Android...and just as I don't misrepresent, lie, or exaggerate things negative about iOS I don't understand why people do it for Android.